Facilitator Training Manual

Module 3 - Victim and Offender Issues

• Victim and Offender Issues
• Victims of Crime
• Victims' Rights
• The Trauma of Crime
• Critical incident stress
• Secondary victimisation
• Resilience
• When a Victim Feels Unable to Attend a conference
• Children in the restorative justice process
• Common Ways that Offenders Think and See the World
• Engaging with offenders
• Offenders who do not want to involve support people
• Exercises

Introduction

This chapter covers background information on working with victims and offenders. Preparation of the victim and offender for the conference is where the hard work takes place.

Learning outcomes

At the end of this module you will be able to:

• describe the possible reactions to trauma and critical incident stress
• describe the impact of secondary victimisation and post-traumatic stress disorder
• describe how offenders may think.

Victims of Crime

A process focused on victims

The court-referred restorative justice process is victim-centred. This means that the needs and concerns of victims are given a very high priority in the process, and that where possible they have control of the process.

The restorative justice conference will only proceed if the victim can see some advantage to them in taking part. Victims do not take part in the restorative justice process in order to provide a service to offenders. They may choose to meet with one offender but not another in relation to the same incident, if that is what will be of most benefit to them.

When a crime is committed, the offender assumes control over some part of the life of the offence victim. From that point on, various players, such as friends and relations, the police who arrest and charge the offender, and the defence counsel, take control at various times. In doing this, they often inadvertently add to the impact of the offence and may contribute to a re-victimisation.

Those who have been victimised by crime often seek the following:

• A real voice in the process

• The offender to take responsibility and to be accountable for their actions

• The families of both the victim and the offender to understand the impact the offending has had on the victim's life

• To understand what had driven the offender to offend

• To ensure that others will not be victimised by this particular offender.

To move beyond victimisation, the control dynamics have to change so the victim of the crime ideally ends up with at least the same degree of self-determination at the conclusion of the restorative process. Sound and skilled pre-conference preparation of the victim is absolutely crucial if the victim is to feel safe and able to make an informed decision about proceeding with the conference.

It is essential that the facilitator ensures that the victim has appropriate support, for example, Victim Support, counsellors and/or family or friends. The facilitator's role involves encouraging the victim, with their support person/people, to assertively state his or her views during pre-conference contacts, then incorporate these into the process of the conference to the greatest possible degree.

While it is not appropriate for facilitators to cross the boundary into counselling, when working with those victimised by crime, being able to assess and prepare victims well is of critical importance.

Victims' Rights

Many of the following guiding principles about the way victims should be treated are embedded in the Victim of Offences Act 1987:

• Victims should be treated with courtesy, compassion, respect, dignity and privacy by everyone who deals with them.

• Access to services: Victims should be able to get the welfare, health, counselling, medical and legal help that they need.

• Early information for victims: Victims should be told as soon as possible about their rights and what help they can get.

• Information about the case: Police and Court staff must keep victims informed of the progress of the case.

• Return of property: Any property that is held as evidence should be returned as soon as possible.

• Victim Impact Statements: The victim should have the opportunity to provide spoken or written information about how the crime has affected them to the sentencing judge. This information is usually presented by the police in Court.

• Victim's home address: The disclosure of the victim's residential address is forbidden.

• Victim's view on bail in certain cases: The victim's fears in relation to a bail application must be provided to the judge by the prosecutor for charges involving sexual assault or serious assaults.

• A victim of serious assault or injury can ask to be told when the offender is going to be released from custody or if the offender has escaped.

The Victims Rights Act passed in 2002 broadens the rights of victims and to make recognition of victims' rights mandatory for the agencies that deliver those rights. It includes a clause that encourages victim-offender meetings "to resolve issues relating to offences".

In addition to making the delivery of the rights expressed in the 1987 Victims of Offences Act mandatory (above), the Victims Rights Act 2002 introduces a raft of new rights for victims, including:

• Ensuring that a victims' views are taken into consideration when a judge makes a decision on final name suppression;

• Extending the range of crimes for which victims may join the notification register and be automatically informed about bail, home detention, release, escape and parole hearings involving the offender;

• Extending the range of circumstances in which victims' concerns must be presented at bail hearings

• Requiring the Police to inform victims if they are eligible to join the notification register;

• Restricting the circulation of victim impact statements, including not allowing an offender to retain a copy, to prevent misuse of such statements by offenders and others

• Allowing wider use of nominated representatives to advocate and receive information on a victim's behalf, including allowing a support person to read a victim impact statement to the Court or make a submission to the Parole Board on the victim's behalf.

Victim Impact Statements

Before an offender is sentenced, a victim impact statement may be prepared for the Court by the Police or by Victim Support on behalf of the Police. It can include information on physical or emotional harm, loss of or damage to property, and any other affects victims have experienced because of the crime. It does not include the victim's views on what the sentence should be. The victim impact statement should be current at the time of sentencing, however, in practice the Police are sometimes unable to update the statement after a lengthy remand period. It is one of a number of submissions the Judge may receive at sentencing, including the restorative justice conference report.

Restorative justice is a victim-centred process and the rights of victims are paramount. It is therefore important for facilitators to have knowledge about how crime impacts on those victimised, and an understanding that the restorative justice process carries a significant risk for victims.

The Trauma of Crime

The impact of crime on victims varies considerably from one person to another, so that there is a wide range of normal responses in thinking, feeling, behaviour and physical effects. Victims' reactions to crime can be anything from mildly disturbing and temporary to dramatic, disabling and persistent. Moreover, reactions can be delayed and some victims will discover that memories, feelings and emotions which they thought they had forgotten, resurface many years later. The variety of reactions appear to be influenced by an interaction of at least three factors:

• the nature of the incident (the event)
• the coping style and resources of the individual (the individual)
• the support given before, during and after the crime (the environment).

Victims can recall experiencing a range of thoughts, feelings, behaviours and physical effects, and not having much ability to control which of these would predominate at any given time. The reactions to a traumatic event can be categorised into four elements:

Thoughts:

• Denial
• Intrusive thoughts and images
• A sense of isolation – nobody understands
• Preoccupation with the incident
• Flashbacks or an imagined picture of the crime itself
• A need to understand every detail of the incident
• Inability to concentrate
• Poor decision making
• Disorientation
• A need to reassess their spiritual faith and values.

Feelings:

• A sense of pointlessness – why go on?
• Vulnerability
• Anxiety and fear
• Depression or sadness
• Loss of control over their lives
• Self blame – guilt, regret or shame
• Anger, rage, hostility or bitterness
• Sympathy for the offender – the "Stockholm syndrome"
• Numbness
• Loss of confidence, low self-esteem and feelings of uselessness
• Hopelessness and helplessness
• Loss of trust.

Behaviour:

• Apathy – an inability or unwillingness to do anything
• Impulsive actions
• Irritability, anger or violence
• Restlessness
• Sleep disturbance
• Withdrawal – retreat into isolation
• Manic or obsessive-compulsive behaviour
• A fixation on maintaining a day-to-day routine (though this may be shattered at times by outbursts of intense emotion)
• Eating or drinking more than usual.

Physical effects:

• Non-specific ailments – headaches, stomach pains, tightness in the chest, feeling generally unwell, sweating, increased heart rate and blood pressure, dry mouth, tension
• Listlessness and constant exhaustion
• Excitement and hyperactivity
• Attacks of panic.

Grief and Victimisation

Some of the thoughts, feelings, behaviours and physical effects listed above will be familiar to those who have worked with people who are grieving. To be a victim is to experience a loss – not just of possessions or money, but of feelings of safety, self-confidence, trust and other feelings. There is a grief associated with these losses and it might be helpful to briefly review some of the stages that have been identified as part of the grieving process. A number of theories about stages of grief have developed, and one of the earliest and best known is that developed by Elizabeth Kubler-Ross in her 1969 book On Death and Dying. In it she identified five stages of grief described below.

1. Denial and Isolation.

2. Anger.

3. Bargaining.

4. Depression.

5. Acceptance.

Critical Incident Stress

Many victims of crime will find themselves experiencing what has tended to be called critical incident stress. A critical incident can be defined as an unexpected tragedy or event. Stress from critical incidents (the offence) is normal because the event or situation is outside the range of usual human experiences, or it can trigger past experiences.

Stress is a normal reaction to a demand upon physical, mental and spiritual energy that is a part of life. Critical incident stress is more specific to certain experiences and can be defined as events or situations "that have sufficient emotional power to overcome the usual coping abilities" (Mitchell and Bray, 1990). Any reaction a victim of crime has is a combination of many factors including their view of the world, needs, fears, prejudices and their past experiences. Tunnecliffe (1997) notes at least seven factors that have been identified within the literature that influence how people respond to situations of intense stress.

It is important to note that critical incident stress can be cumulative. It can be caused by the culmination of a number of incidents over time and is not necessarily the outcome of a single event.

Factors that affect the impact of crime on victims include:

• Severity of the stressor. It is generally agreed that the more severe the incident, the higher the likelihood of a stress reaction. However, if the person perceives that the situation is highly threatening, then this in itself may create trauma. Reactions to stress are very subjective.

• Duration of exposure to stressor. Long exposure, or multiple stressors, can contribute to the build-up of stress. Duration can mean a single event over a long time or a series of events that have a cumulative effect. Victims can perceive themselves as being singled out for victimisation, feeling they have little control over future situations. This perceived lack of control then has a major impact upon how they interact in future situations and their interpretation of events that take place.

• Personality pre-disposition. Clearly some types of personality deal with trauma more effectively than others. It has been noted that people who tend to be more anxious, worry a lot, or have a perfectionist nature are more prone to stress than those who do not exhibit these traits.

• Prior trauma experience. Prior trauma can have either a negative or positive impact upon how an individual manages critical incident stress. The literature on the role of prior trauma in subsequent trauma response contains two contrasting perspectives:

• The first, the vulnerability perspective, holds that prior trauma leaves permanent psychic damage that renders survivors more vulnerable when subsequently faced with extreme stress

• The second, the resilience perspective, holds that coping well with initial trauma will strengthen resistance to the effects of future trauma

Both perspectives recognise individual differences in response to trauma. For example the exposure to massive trauma may overwhelm predisposition and previous coping experience. However, the post-trauma impact can be lessened by the type of human and environmental factors in a person's life.

• Age. Both the young and the elderly can be more vulnerable to traumatic incidents. Age has an impact on capacity to cope.

• Support systems available. Strong support systems within a victim's life can minimise the impact of critical incident stress. Where the person does not have these in place then the impact of stress is clearly greater.

• Degree of control. A key factor is the perceived level of control the person has in the crisis situation. If the person cannot find at least some level of control within a stressful situation, then again the level of trauma is greater.

Secondary Victimisation

Secondary victimisation refers to the victimisation which occurs, not as a direct result of the criminal act, but through the response of institutions and individuals to the victim.

Institutionalised secondary victimisation within the criminal justice system may result from intrusive or inappropriate conduct by police or other criminal justice personnel. More subtly, the whole process of criminal investigation and trial may cause secondary victimisation. The progress of the case from initial investigation of the crime through to decisions on whether or not to prosecute, the trial itself and the sentencing of the offender, to his or her eventual release, can all impact adversely on the victim. Secondary victimisation may occur because of difficulties in balancing the rights of the victim with the rights of the accused or the offender. More normally, however, it occurs because those responsible for ordering criminal justice processes and procedures do so without taking into account the perspective of the victim.

Other agencies which come into contact with the victim may cause secondary victimisation. Hospital policies and procedures may restrict relatives' access to the body of a loved one. The hurried schedule of the emergency room may affect a sexual assault victim's privacy or sense of dignity. Doctors may not acknowledge signs of spouse abuse. Spiritual leaders may attempt to guide victims into paths of forgiveness or accommodation before they are ready or against their wishes. Intrusive or inappropriate investigation and filming, photographing and reporting by the media is also a factor.

The attitude of individuals is also important. Some people with whom the victim has contact (e.g. family, friends and colleagues) may wish to distance themselves from the distress of the crime by blaming the victim for what has occurred. They may view the victim's behaviour as having contributed to, or even caused the victimisation. They may deny the impact of the crime and expect the victim to "get on with their lives." Families can be a particularly powerful influence in this respect.

There is a high risk of secondary victimisation is the restorative justice process if it is not handled well.

Post-Traumatic Stress disorder

Secondary victimisation can contribute to victims experiencing long term and disabling reactions to the crime. Where victims do show such signs they may need to be referred to a doctor, as they could have post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). From an historical perspective, the significant change ushered in by the PTSD concept was the stipulation that the causal agent was outside the individual (i.e. the traumatic event) rather than an inherent individual weakness.

A traumatic event was seen as clearly different from the very painful stressors that make up the normal vicissitudes of life such as divorce, failure, rejection, serious illness and financial difficulties. This distinction between traumatic and other stressors was based on the assumption that although most individuals have the ability to cope with ordinary stress, their adaptive capacities are likely to be overwhelmed when confronted by a traumatic stressor.

PTSD can have a delayed reaction and symptoms may not emerge until after a six-month period. Where the symptom patterns occur within four weeks of the traumatic event and resolve within the four-week period it is more accurately described as Acute Stress Disorder.

The main reactions that facilitators will need to be aware of include:

• re-experiencing of reactions, feelings and emotions associated with the incident e.g. flashbacks, dreams, repetitive thoughts of the trauma

• persistent avoidance behaviours and numbing of responses including avoidance of people, places and things associated with the trauma

• persistent symptoms of arousal, e.g. anxiety, difficulty concentrating, sleep disturbance, irritability, hyper-startle.

Stockholm Syndrome

Shirley Julich explored restorative justice and child sexual abuse from the

perspective of adult survivors in her unpublished doctoral thesis "Breaking the silence: Restorative justice and child sexual abuse" (2001), and a paper presented to the Just Peace Conference in 1999, titled "The Irony of Restorative Justice". Her exploration of the unique relationship between offenders and victims in child sexual abuse cases may also be relevant to other types of offences.

Unique relationships can develop between offenders and victims in certain situations. The term 'Stockholm Syndrome' emerged to describe the puzzling reactions of four bank employees who were held hostage in a Stockholm bank for 6 days in the early 70's. The hostages became emotionally bonded to their captors and resisted efforts by the government to rescue them. This relationship did not cease on the release of the hostages but persisted for years after the actual event. Research has shown that almost anyone can develop Stockholm Syndrome if certain conditions are met. Dee Graham (1994, as cited in Julich, 2001) described these as:

• perceived threat to survival and the belief that one's captor is willing to act on that threat

• the captive's perception of small kindness from the captor within a context of terror

• isolation from perspectives other than those of the captor

• perceived inability to escape.

The relationship that occurs in Stockholm Syndrome is a survival strategy that is readily identified in survivors of child sexual abuse and domestic violence. Researchers highlight the rapidity of the development of such a relationship.

Facilitators of restorative justice conferences should not underestimate the power of this relationship. It is important facilitators understand that for victims of these crimes, this relationship can persist for years. Victims may be unable to identify their own needs. Furthermore victims tend to accommodate the offender by making decisions based on what they believe may be more acceptable to the offender.

Resilience

Some victims cope better than others in reacting to critical incident stress. Meichenbaum's analysis of the literature and research concluded that the following were characteristic of those who seemed to cope best with a traumatic experience

• Being able to share problems with others

• Being able to compare oneself with those less fortunate

• Being able to focus on the positive aspects of the experience

• Being able to find acceptable answers to "why?" questions or, in some cases, to stop asking such questions, because there are no answers

• Not feeling personally responsible for what happened

• Being able to place reactions where they belong – that is, in the incident that caused them, rather than in oneself or in one's own abilities or perceived lack of them.

Since the most helpful ways of coping are related to the ability to talk about the experience, make some kind of sense of it and incorporate it into one's life, these should be of significance to those working with victims. Restorative justice conferencing, by its very nature, provides the opportunities for victims to heal from the effects of crime by allowing for ownership of the problem to be clearly laid with the offender. However, it is equally vital that victims feel that they can achieve justice through the process.

When a Victim Feels Unable to Attend a Conference

In particular circumstances a family member or friend may attend the conference in place of the victim.

This can be appropriate when the victim has suffered extreme trauma and feels unable to face the offender. The person who attends the conference in their place must be able to express the effects of the offending on the person that they are representing.

Obviously, this offers less benefit to the victim than being at the conference in person, as it does not allow for a dialogue between the victim and the offender, which can be the basis for a shift of attitude and understanding.

However, facilitators can discuss with the Restorative Justice Coordinator cases where the victim wants to be represented but cannot face attending the conference.

Children in the Restorative Justice Process

In general it is not appropriate for children to attend restorative justice conferences. As the cases dealt with in the pilot are referred from the District Court, the offenders are adults (ie, 17 years or over). When an offence occurs it creates a power imbalance between the victim and offender in the offender's favour. This imbalance becomes much greater when the victim is a child. There is potential for a child victim to be re-victimised in taking part in a restorative justice process with an adult offender. It is much preferable for a child victim to be represented by someone who is able to describe the effects of the offending and to relay the offender's response appropriately to the child.

The telling of the offender's story and the offender's emotions can have a great impact on a child victim who is unlikely to have the maturity or understanding to put them into context and is unable to respond to them on an equal footing.

A child victim may be manipulated, consciously or unconsciously, to feel responsible for the difficulties caused by the sentencing outcome or for the pain that the offender expresses.

Facilitators need to assist any child victim's parents or caregivers to understand the risks of re-victimisation and to consider options such as having someone attend the restorative justice conference in the child's place, or having the child attend for part of the conference only.

In cases where the parents or caregivers and the child him/herself feel that s/he should attend, then the facilitator should take particular care to prepare the child and parents and support people. Ensure that the child has plenty of opportunity to discuss what might happen in the conference, understands that the process is entirely voluntary, and understands that s/he might feel affected by the conference in unexpected ways afterwards.

Child Victims and Conference Outcomes

Those representing a child victim at a restorative justice conference also need to consider the impact upon the child of any outcomes. They need to consider whether an apology is appropriate and will be helpful to the child, and whether it should be made in writing or in person.

Facilitators need to discuss these matters with children's representatives before any conference.

Other Children at Conferences

In general, the restorative justice conference is a forum for open discussion by adults of the offence and its effects. The presence of children may constrain the expression of emotions and inhibit victims from saying what they need to say.

Alternatively, when anger, disgust, fear and other feelings are expressed, then there is likely to be a negative affect on the children present.

Facilitators need to ask victims and offenders at the pre-conference meetings not to bring their children to the conference. Where children are brought, facilitators should try to ensure that they are cared for outside of the room for at least part of the conference to enable open expression by the participants.

Common Ways that Offenders Think and See the World

Offenders have a key role as to whether or not a restorative justice conference occurs. Offenders continue, even after the offence, to exert some control over the victim by either agreeing or disagreeing to participate in a restorative process if this is a possibility.

Offenders, like victims, are a diverse group of people and will range from first-time contact with the criminal justice system through to those who have had numerous contacts. Because restorative justice facilitators have the role of assessing the appropriateness of offering a restorative justice conference, and ensuring the processes do not re-victimise, knowledge of the how offenders operate is critical.

One of the key principles of restorative justice conferencing is to provide an opportunity for offenders to take responsibility and be accountable to the victim for their actions. Preparation of the offender in a careful manner is therefore critical to ensuring both victim and offender issues are dealt with. The following material covers issues of how offenders think and ideas about ways to engage with the offender.

By understanding the belief systems that offenders have, restorative justice facilitators will be better able to assess whether a conference is appropriate. Also the facilitator will have knowledge of how this might impact on the victim. Therefore understanding how offenders think is a useful starting point.

Belief systems (schema) are stable structures that organise and hold all of an individual's knowledge and experiences, and are concepts that people live by. These have been constructed from information received from events and situations and processed by the person in the past. People have hundreds of belief systems by which they interpret their experiences and then take appropriate action according to beliefs (e.g. there are belief systems about victims, children, work).

Some belief systems can become a problem in that they become rigid. When this happens, people tend to interpret their experiences in ways that support the belief systems over and over again. One way they do this is called confirmatory bias. This is a tendency to look for and accept only the information that confirms an existing viewpoint, or process it in a way, which biases the actual information but confirms the belief. For example, in a discussion with another person I will be listening for information that supports my viewpoint and not giving much attention to information that contradicts my viewpoint.

Another way they do this is called mental grooving. This refers to the psychological ruts that everyone returns to in situations of stress or uncertainty. If an individual does not fully understand a situation or feels anxious, he or she will start looking for some quickly available memory, thought, information or assumption that will help them decide what to do. Being involved in a restorative justice conference is a stressful event for many offenders. It is likely that the offender may, in the face of this stress, revert to patterns that may include either argument or withdrawal. A variety of emotions could be behind withdrawal behaviour. These could be based around sadness, whakama/shame, despair or anger.

With offenders, there is almost always a subtle network of beliefs that have become self-validating and rigid and which prove in the offender's mind, at the moment he or she acts, that their behaviour is right. The following section will outline three common beliefs – victim stance; entitlement; and righteous anger.

Victim Stance

With the victim stance, offenders hold the belief that they are being victimised. Many offenders believe that they are being unfairly treated. Some have learned a defiant, hostile attitude as part of their basic orientation towards life and other people. Both their perceptions of being victimised and their hostile response to it are learned ways of thinking that are reinforced by experiences of success and self-gratification. For instance, the sense of victimised outrage is itself a feeling of strength and righteousness, more preferable in an offender's mind to feelings of weakness and vulnerability.

Examples of taking the victim stance

• The offender who sees himself as the victim in relation to his offending because he believes the offence was not his idea: "They (co-offenders) made me do it".
• A person who commits thefts and believes he is the victim of betrayal by "the system" in the form of the Courts and/or social welfare. If he had had a fair chance at jobs /benefits /schools, if he had had more support from his family, he wouldn't be in this position.

Entitlement

Another important belief underlying the offence process is entitlement. Offenders who have this belief think they are entitled to absolute freedom in the way they conduct their lives. They may picture themselves as living in isolation from the world, in a kind of world of their own. In their subjective world they are in absolute control and have the absolute right to do as they please. From this point of view any restriction of their freedom is resented as an unjust intrusion.

Example of entitlement belief

• A person who commits cheque fraud believes that he should be able to have expensive goods.
• A person who believes that he is entitled to have a gun without a licence, or to drive a car while disqualified, or to abuse or intimidate those who oppose or get in his way.

Righteous anger

Another common belief is expressed by offenders as righteous anger. When the real world fails to comply with their expectations and demands, they take a stance of righteous defiance. Relationships with other people are dominated by a struggle for power. Win-lose/us-them is the dominant form of personal interaction with others.

An example of righteous anger

• The offender who insists that she was justified in having assaulted the shop assistant who gave her "cheek" or "asked for it".

An interaction of the belief systems

Belief systems work together and translate into antisocial behaviour. Victim stance, entitlement and righteous anger become dominant themes of living. This network of beliefs determines a basically adversarial relationship with the world around offenders where winning is the goal. These beliefs are the opposite to seeing oneself involved in, and a member of, a wider group in society with obligations to other members of the community.

These belief systems are a trap. When offenders win their struggle with the world, they may feel a towering sense of elation. When they lose, for instance being caught doing a crime and held accountable, they may feel terrible, but not for long. Their belief systems provide them with a ready interpretation of their difficulties that takes the sting out of their failure. They picture themselves as the victim, and righteous anger displaces the feelings of loss and failure. With victim stance thinking there is no room for remorse. Righteous anger brings strong feelings of power. Losing by this circular logic makes them a winner and whether they win or lose, the underlying belief systems are reinforced.

Facilitators need to be aware of the complexities caused by these interacting belief systems when beginning to engage with the offender in a conversation designed to explore the possibility of a conference between them and the victims.

Engaging with Offenders

There are a number of tasks and issues for facilitators to consider when engaging with offenders and assessing their suitability to take part in restorative justice processes with victims. These issues are covered in some detail in module 6 (pp 156-157).

It is also important that the facilitator considers the readiness or willingness of the offender to participate in a restorative justice conference. Accurately assessing the offender's motivation is important for:

• deciding whether it is appropriate to progress to the next step in the process
• being able to identify particular thinking statements that are likely to create tension during the conference
• ensuring the safety of the victim.

Understanding the process of change is important for facilitators to be able to assess whether it is appropriate for a conference to take place. It also gives the facilitator considerable information as to how the offender is likely to present in the conference, if it is to proceed. Prochaska and DiClemente (1986) offer a useful theoretical conceptualisation of motivation. They outlined a series of stages of change, which broadly cover the spectrum of possible motivational states. We explore the first three that exist prior to implementing change.

1. Pre-contemplative: At this stage offenders either do not strongly agree that offending is a problem or they do strongly agree but are not prepared to address it. If an offender is at this stage they are unlikely to be a willing candidate for a restorative justice conference. Even if they do agree to attend the conference, they are likely to defend their actions as being okay. This of course can be re-victimising for other participants.
2. Contemplative: At this stage offenders express both strong agreement that what they have done is a problem and a willingness to address it. However, offenders who are contemplative can still vary in their readiness to change from no commitment to a genuine commitment. Offenders have censored out significant amounts of information in order to cross the traditional codes of morality. Many offenders will not deny in an outright manner what they have done but will use different thinking errors that contribute to repeat offending. These responsibility avoidance thoughts fall into the following broad areas.:

• Denying the existence or extent of offending

"My actions were misinterpreted"

"I might have accidentally ....."

"They must have mistaken someone else for me"

"They've got it very wrong"

"They don't remember properly"

"I don't remember that"

"I only offended once"

"They're only saying that to get back at me"

• Denying the significance or the impact of offending

"It didn't really hurt them"

"I only just touched them"

"My offending doesn't hurt anyone"

"It's been blown out of all proportion"

"They're just exaggerating"

"It hasn't really affected them. Things are fine now"

• Blaming something or someone else for offending

"They wanted me to do it"

"They started it"

"They asked for it"

"I was drunk at the time"

"They just led me on"

"They knew what would happen."

"I was under stress / had marriage problems"

• Denying the possibility of ever re-offending

"I just know it won't happen ever again"

"I'll never put myself through all this again"

"I'm putting all my energy into work now"

"I've found the Lord"

"I've paid my debt to society"

"It's all behind me now - I want to focus on the future"

"I just want all of us to get on with our lives now"

Clearly if offenders are in the contemplative stage they are more likely to be prepared to engage in a restorative justice conference. Within this stage offenders may take three different positions that are useful for facilitators to be aware of. Each of these is related but indicates a slight movement towards responsibility and accountability for the crime committed.

1. The offender states commitment to change and shows evidence of responsibility avoidance strategies as in the examples given above.
2. The offender states commitment to change and does not show evidence of responsibility avoidance strategies in relation to their offending.
3. The offender states commitment to change and does not show evidence of responsibility avoidance strategies in relation to their offending and is able to identify positive and plausible benefits of change.

Each group are candidates for restorative conferencing and will present differently within the conference itself. However, as stated earlier, offenders may move back to a prior position when under stress (see mental grooving).

Decision: Once motivation has been identified in terms of the above sub-stages, offenders are then left with the decision as to their likely participation in restorative justice conferencing. Even at this stage offenders may choose to opt out of the process.

The above process is not a neat or linear one. At any stage offenders can decide to opt out and choose to have their offending dealt with within the normal criminal justice system.

Offenders who do not want to involve support people

Sometimes offenders will tell the facilitators that they are unable to identify anyone close to them who can support them. The facilitators will be able to gauge what is behind this, through their conversations with the offender.

Some offenders will be truly isolated, and in that situation, the facilitator needs to try to find someone – possibly from a helping agency or from a community network, who can provide some support.

Others, however, will not be willing to involve family or friends because they do not want them to know about the offence. This may be an indicator that the offender is not willing to be held accountable for the offence by their own community of interest. If this is the case it can undermine their role in the restorative justice process.

The facilitator can talk with the offender about their need for support through the criminal justice process as well as the restorative justice process. Facilitators can tell the offender that the restorative justice process can be a chance to show not just the victim, but their own family, whanau, aiga, etc that they are facing up to the consequences of their offending and beginning to make changes.

Exercise 3.1 Your own reactions to stress

1. Think about an unexpected stressful experience you have had. Consider and note down your:

Thoughts

Feelings

Behaviours

Physical reactions

2. What prior experiences influenced your reaction?

3. Note what helped you at the time of the incident:

The things you did

The things others did

4. Note what helped you manage/cope after the incident:

The things you did

The things others did

5. Were you aware of any secondary victimisation? Describe.

6. In what ways might doing this exercise assist you when talking with victims?

Exercise 3.2 Victims in the restorative justice process

1. List three things that might indicate re-victimisation in the restorative justice process.
2. List five concerns or questions a victim may have about the restorative justice process.
3. Why is informed consent of victims important in the restorative justice process?

Exercise 3.3 Belief systems

Generate a further example for each of the following:

Victim stance

Entitlement

Righteous anger

Exercise 3.4: Matching the boxes

Draw lines to match the statements with the respective stage that you would assess an offender is.

Exercise 3.5 Offenders in the restorative justice process

1. List five concerns or questions an offender may have about the restorative justice process.
2. Why is informed consent by offenders important in the restorative justice process?